What must I do to be saved

[mailmandan]

Yes it is important Ralph. That's why you should not CHANGE what the Lord has expressly said.
And what the Lord has expressly said was that it is the SEED that is the Word of God, NOT the Root! Important distinction.
Luke 8:11 “Now the parable is this: The SEED is the word of God.
So once again, JESUS is the Root. These people NEVER had Jesus (the Root).

Here is Luke 8:13. Tell me where Jesus said they were saved? Jesus said they had NO ROOT IN. They were NOT born again. Judas is a perfect example of this.
13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of [g]temptation fall away.

The word sprang up, NOT down! NOT into a newly created heart. That is just the point. The Primary Root is the FIRST thing to emerge. Jesus said they had NO Root. He DID NOT say they had no DEEP root. He said they had NO Root.

Amen! The seed that fell on the stony soil did not have much earth; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of earth (it sprang up but no crop sprang up) and and because it had no root it withered away. (Mark 4:6)

There was some motion and movement toward growth, unlike the seed that fell by the wayside, yet the condition changed from sprang up (although it did not yet reach it's desired goal) to withered away.

The word was never firmly rooted and established from the start. People who do not hear the word with a good and honest heart and having "no root" and produce “no fruit” do not experience real salvation.

 

[mailmandan]

The failure was that the word did not take root in good soil, in CONTRAST to the 4th soil, which represents those who heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance (Luke 8:15).

What did Jesus say about plants that will be uprooted? Matthew 15:13 - "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted.

Now in regards to the 3rd soul, some people interpret “becomes unfruitful" (as read in certain translations) as "was fruitful but then later became unfruitful." Other translations make it more clear:

Bible in Basic English - put a stop to the growth of the word and it gives no fruit.

Complete Jewish Bible - so that it produces nothing.

English Standard Version - choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.

New Century Version - So the teaching does not produce fruit in that person's life.

New Revised Standard - choke the word, and it yields nothing.

Revised Standard Version - choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.

The Amplified Bible reads, "and it yields no fruit."

Luke 8:14 says "bring no fruit to maturity."

That is not the same thing as "was fruitful, only to later become unfruitful." Produces nothing, proves unfruitful, does not produce fruit, yields nothing, yields no fruit, brings no fruit to maturity, just does not equate to produced fruit but later stopped producing fruit.

In CONTRAST, to the rocky and thorny soil, we read in Matthew 13:23 - "And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who INDEED BEARS FRUIT and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty." *Only the 4th soil produced crops of any size.* I suppose the question still remains, "can this forth soil eventually become fruitless?" If this were possible, why didn't Christ include such a scenario before concluding?

*There is mention of a difference in the size of the crops, but no consequences or warnings are given to the lesser producers. Only the 4th soil was referred to as "good ground" and produced a crop (fruit) and there is NO MENTION OF CHOKING OR WITHERING THEREAFTER.

 

[Ralph-]

Yes it is important Ralph. That's why you should not CHANGE what the Lord has expressly said.
And what the Lord has expressly said was that it is the SEED that is the Word of God, NOT the Root! Important distinction.
Luke 8:11 “Now the parable is this: The SEED is the word of God.
So once again, JESUS is the Root. These people NEVER had Jesus (the Root).

Let's not change the parable and make it teach doctrines that it does not teach.

The root is the word planted and growing in a person's heart. The roots indicate how firmly the heart is retaining the knowledge of the kingdom of God. Perhaps you recognize this concept of 'retaining the word of the gospel that you heard' from other scriptures.

If the word is firmly retained it will not be able to be uprooted, and it will, in perseverance, bear fruit. Soil #4 is where the security of salvation is, not #2. Strong, deeply rooted retention of the gospel message is what endures to the end and can not be lost. Weak, less firmly rooted knowledge of the kingdom is what can be uprooted by trials and temptations.

Here is Luke 8:13. Tell me where Jesus said they were saved? Jesus said they had NO ROOT IN. They were NOT born again.

He plainly said they believed (Luke 8:13). And we know it's not fake, intellectual, factual 'faith' by the fact that it is growing in the heart of this person. Of course, for it to do that it has to have some root, not none at all. If this was supposed to be representative of a non-believer's heart the seed would be laying on top of the soil, not retained and planted in it, that's soil #1. Unbelievers don't receive the word of the gospel into their hearts. Only believers do (1 John 5:10).

The word sprang up, NOT down! NOT into a newly created heart. That is just the point. The Primary Root is the FIRST thing to emerge. Jesus said they had NO Root. He DID NOT say they had no DEEP root. He said they had NO Root.

Come on, Penn. Be reasonable. Plants don't grow if they have NO root. The context shows us the problem is these roots aren't able to go down deep to keep the word of God sown retained in the soil and growing in it. And that's because of they type of soil it's in, not because it didn't 'really' get sown and start growing there. This is not the soil of an unbeliever. That's the first kind of soil. The word is rejected in the unbelieving heart (1 John 5:10). The person who believes in the Son of God is the one who has the word of God's testimony in him:

"10The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself "-1 John 5:10

 

[Ralph-]

Nowhere in the passage does James imply that it could have been real faith at one time.

Nor does he exclusively imply that the person with dead faith never had faith to begin with. The point the passage does not limit or endorse either situation. Either scenario is possible, but you are projecting your predetermined doctrine on the passage and insisting he can only be talking about a person who never had faith. I'm asking you to show me where you get that in the passage.

I'm not adding anything. I'm simply letting the passages do the talking.

Fine, then just show me where the passage says the person with dead faith can only be a person who never believed and can not be someone who stopped believing.

It's you who is projecting your predetermined speculation onto scripture here instead of letting scripture say what it says in James 2:14. Your obsession with attacking the OSAS doctrine is driving you mad.

All I'm saying is the passage does not rule out the possibility that the person with dead faith may have once believed but doesn't anymore. But if you are sure the passage does rule that out, show me.

And you are the one with the misguided obsession. You think that all anti-once saved always saved arguments are the Catholic anti-once saved always saved argument. You're blindly beating down any and all arguments thinking they are all the same as the Catholic doctrine you have come away from. Stop doing that and listen to what people say, not what you think they are saying.

I've had numerous conversations with people who "claimed" to have once been a Christian/believer, but now claim they are no longer a Christian/believer (and some have even professed to be atheists now) BUT when I questioned them about what they previously believed that made them believers and how they became born again, prior to not believing now, I NEVER received a sufficient answer from ANY of them.

That is how it works. I know someone who I know for a fact was saved but who later denounced the faith and stop believing. This person is now dumb as rock when it comes to the faith and their experience in salvation and I know firsthand that they were not like that before. They were living proof and confirmation for me of how God does not let you keep the light you once had if you walk away from it. It's as if they were never saved, and worse! God is not mocked.

...genuine faith does not stop believing. I don't understand why certain people try to make it so complicated.

You are the one making it complicated. The scriptures warn believers to not stop believing but to retain and persevere in the word they first heard and by which they were saved, and that you can't be saved if you don't do that. There is no scripture that says a believer is incapable of no longer believing. But 'once saved always saved' goes into these complicated 'not really' doctrines that make it so the believer can not stop believing. Just read the Bible for what it says and stop making the Bible not mean what it says!

 

[Ralph-]

Notice the 3rd type...(since this is the one we are talking about really as it concerns our own condition usually)

Mat. 13:22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

He becomes unfruitful....not was never fruitful. This is speaking of the majority of Christians in the rich countries. It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom. So this kind of soil should be looked at carefully. It is a conflict of interest for rich Western people to skim over this...and say..."it's not me." But wisdom is known of her children...

I always laugh to myself when I hear a Christian say the 3rd type of soil person is not saved. I wonder why they don't realize they are condemning themselves as unsaved that way. And it is these same Christians who call you a blind, sinless perfectionist Pharisee if you even dare hint that you or somebody else might be possessing some of the 4th type of soil. The 3rd type of soil is unsaved and the 4th type of soil is only theoretical. It just reminds me how crazy we Christians are.

 

[Ralph-]

Nor does he exclusively imply that the person with dead faith never had faith to begin with. The point the passage does not limit or endorse either situation. Either scenario is possible, but you are projecting your predetermined doctrine on the passage and insisting he can only be talking about a person who never had faith. I'm asking you to show me where you get that in the passage.




Fine, then just show me where the passage says the person with dead faith can only be a person who never believed and can not be someone who stopped believing.



All I'm saying is the passage does not rule out the possibility that the person with dead faith may have once believed but doesn't anymore. But if you are sure the passage does rule that out, show me.

And you are the one with the misguided obsession. You think that all anti-once saved always saved arguments are the Catholic anti-once saved always saved argument. You're blindly beating down any and all arguments thinking they are all the same as the Catholic doctrine you have come away from. Stop doing that and listen to what people say, not what you think they are saying.




That is how it works. I know someone who I know for a fact was saved but who later denounced the faith and stop believing. This person is now dumb as rock when it comes to the faith and their experience in salvation and I know firsthand that they were not like that before. They were living proof and confirmation for me of how God does not let you keep the light you once had if you walk away from it. It's as if they were never saved, and worse! God is not mocked.


You are the one making it complicated. The scriptures warn believers to not stop believing but to retain and persevere in the word they first heard and by which they were saved, and that you can't be saved if you don't do that. There is no scripture that says a believer is incapable of no longer believing. But 'once saved always saved' goes into these complicated 'not really' doctrines that make it so the believer can not stop believing. Just read the Bible for what it says and stop making the Bible not mean what it says!

Don't say this old, mailmandan. Just show me where James is excluding the possibility that the person with dead faith may have once believed but doesn't now.

 

[Ralph-]

What did Jesus say about plants that will be uprooted? Matthew 15:13 - "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted.

But the Father is the one who sowed the seeds in the Parable of the Sower. How do we know that? It's some of the same seed that is being sown but which falls into different soils, and it came to full fruition in the 4th type of soil. Trust me, the devil did not sow that seed. This is God's seed being sown, not the devil's seed.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Go back through the thread to find out who introduced what to the discussion concerning the James 2:20 "faith without works is dead" issue.

I believe to conflate two passages of Scripture to support a predetermined doctrine is not proper rightly dividing of Scripture.

James deals with an issue that is very simple at its core, but which can become complicated when unrelated Scripture or doctrine is brought into the mix.

God instructs us to be workmen who are not ashamed and who rightly divide the Word of Truth.

There is no language in James 2 which supports the doctrine that a person once had genuine faith but does not have genuine faith now.

Nor is there language in James 2 which supports whether the person never had genuine faith to begin with.

Do not use James 2 to support either scenario.

James 2 deals with a claim by someone in which the actions of that person bear out the veracity of the claim.

 

[Ralph-]

...I was at a point where He was so much a part of me that there was no way I believed He was going to drop me/let me walk away/etc.

Yes, you grew to this point. This is what I've been saying.

Only the 4th type of soil can say they won't stop believing. But weak believers do not have that assurance. They're still open game to the testings and trials of the faith. Their roots don't go down deeply enough yet to resist the word of God being rooted up from their hearts in unbelief yet.

And so to make a statement that seems to men to be saying that babies can't have any security in Him, makes others mad.

Not just babies in the Lord, but in particular, weak babies in the Lord.
They are the one's who can be persuaded by the trials and temptations connected to the gospel to not retain the word of the gospel in their hearts and not have the saving word of God in them, like the 1st type of soil.

Because babies fall down a lot, they cry at the slightest discomfort and are very carnal and touchy. And God is patient and merciful and He loves babies and knows how to grow them. It takes a long time. But they increase and grow and learn to take steps and stop falling so much.

And like I say, it's isn't those failures within your trust in Christ that cause you to forfeit salvation. It's our outright denial of Christ in unbelief that causes that.

As long as you continue to trust in Christ your failures are covered through your faith in the blood of Christ. It's when you venture outside of trust in Christ that you then no longer have Christ's blood to cover your sin. You make yourself subject to the wrath of God all over again, along with the rest of the enemies of God who do not trust in Jesus' blood.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

But the Father is the one who sowed the seeds in the Parable of the Sower. How do we know that? It's some of the same seed that is being sown but which falls into different soils, and it came to full fruition in the 4th type of soil. Trust me, the devil did not sow that seed. This is God's seed being sown, not the devil's seed.

The sower is not identified in any of the passages.

The Seed is identified as the Word of the kingdom (Matt 13:19), the Word (Mark 4:14), the Word of God (Luke 8:11).

My understanding is that believers plant (sow) and water; and God gives the increase (1 Cor 3:6). Believers are laborers together with God (1 Cor 3:9).

 

[mailmandan]

Let's not change the parable and make it teach doctrines that it does not teach.

The root is the word planted and growing in a person's heart. The roots indicate how firmly the heart is retaining the knowledge of the kingdom of God. Perhaps you recognize this concept of 'retaining the word of the gospel that you heard' from other scriptures.

If the word is firmly retained it will not be able to be uprooted, and it will, in perseverance, bear fruit. Soil #4 is where the security of salvation is, not #2. Strong, deeply rooted retention of the gospel message is what endures to the end and can not be lost. Weak, less firmly rooted knowledge of the kingdom is what can be uprooted by trials and temptations.




He plainly said they believed (Luke 8:13). And we know it's not fake, intellectual, factual 'faith' by the fact that it is growing in the heart of this person. Of course, for it to do that it has to have some root, not none at all. If this was supposed to be representative of a non-believer's heart the seed would be laying on top of the soil, not retained and planted in it, that's soil #1. Unbelievers don't receive the word of the gospel into their hearts. Only believers do (1 John 5:10).



Come on, Penn. Be reasonable. Plants don't grow if they have NO root. The context shows us the problem is these roots aren't able to go down deep to keep the word of God sown retained in the soil and growing in it. And that's because of they type of soil it's in, not because it didn't 'really' get sown and start growing there. This is not the soil of an unbeliever. That's the first kind of soil. The word is rejected in the unbelieving heart (1 John 5:10). The person who believes in the Son of God is the one who has the word of God's testimony in him:

"10The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself "-1 John 5:10

But the Father is the one who sowed the seeds in the Parable of the Sower. How do we know that? It's some of the same seed that is being sown but which falls into different soils, and it came to full fruition in the 4th type of soil. Trust me, the devil did not sow that seed. This is God's seed being sown, not the devil's seed.

I never said that the devil’s seed was being sown in the parable of the soils. I was simply pointing out what type of plants that Jesus said would be uprooted in Matthew 15:13, in response to your comment about uprooted plants. Get a grip Ralph. Your obsession with trying to disprove OSAS is driving you mad!

 

[Ralph-]

I never said that the devil’s seed was being sown in the parable of the soils. I was simply pointing out what type of plants that Jesus said would be uprooted in Matthew 15:13, in response to your comment about uprooted plants.

Wheat seeds sprout wheat stalks. Tare seeds sprout tares (which are then uprooted at the end of the age). But you're trying to say the word of God sowed in soil #2 sprouted something other than the word of God because it was uprooted.

 

[Ralph-]

The sower is not identified in any of the passages.

The Seed is identified as the Word of the kingdom (Matt 13:19), the Word (Mark 4:14), the Word of God (Luke 8:11).

My understanding is that believers plant (sow) and water; and God gives the increase (1 Cor 3:6). Believers are laborers together with God (1 Cor 3:9).

Note in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares that the Son of Man is the one who sows the good seed. Of course we know that he does that by the Holy Spirit through his workers.

 

[Ralph-]

What did Jesus say about plants that will be uprooted? Matthew 15:13 - "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted.

The problem is you are mixing metaphors. The plants in that metaphor are people--tares or wheat. The growth in the Parable of the Sower is not people, it's the fruit of the kingdom. There are people who will bring the fruit of the kingdom to fruition through persevering in the word by retaining it in their hearts, and there are those who will not (Matthew 21:43).

 

[mailmandan]

Wheat seeds sprout wheat stalks. Tare seeds sprout tares (which are then uprooted at the end of the age). But you're trying to say the word of God sowed in soil #2 sprouted something other than the word of God because it was uprooted.

That’s not what I said. The seed that fell in the 2nd soil (rocky ground) failed to take root and produce a crop. Shallow, temporary belief that has no root, produces no fruit and withers away does not represent saving belief.

 

[mailmandan]

The problem is you are mixing metaphors. The plants in that metaphor are people--tares or wheat. The growth in the Parable of the Sower is not people, it's the fruit of the kingdom. There are people who will bring the fruit of the kingdom to fruition through persevering in the word by retaining it in their hearts, and there are those who will not (Matthew 21:43).

Actually, that was not my problem because I was not mixing the metaphors.

 

[Ralph-]

Shallow, temporary belief that has no root, produces no fruit and withers away does not represent saving belief.

Why does temporary belief not represent saving belief?

Because 'once saved always saved' is true.


That's called circular reasoning.

 

[mailmandan]

Why does temporary belief not represent saving belief?

Go back and read post #398. It thoroughly explains why.

https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/what-must-i-do-to-be-saved.177680/page-20

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Note in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares that the Son of Man is the one who sows the good seed. Of course we know that he does that by the Holy Spirit through his workers.

There you go again. Conflating two separate records in Scripture. You need to quit doing that. It is not proper interpretation.


In the parable of the wheat and the tares, the good seed are the children of the kingdom (Matt 13:38).

In the parable of the soils, the seed is the Word of the kingdom (Matt 13:19), the Word (Mark 4:14), the Word of God (Luke 8:11).


When God wants us to know who the sower is, He will tell us.

When God doesn’t tell us, it is best not to guess or go to another record and assume it is the same thing.

 

[Ralph-]

Go back and read post #398. It thoroughly explains why.

*Unlike saving faith, temporary shallow belief is not rooted in a regenerate heart. How can no depth of earth, no root, no moisture, no fruit, (Matthew 13:5-6; Luke 8:6; 13) represent saving belief?

If it was an unregenerate heart the seed would lay on the top. That's soil #1. That's where your unbeliever is.

And how is it that the word of God grew in soil #2 with NO earth, NO root, NO moisture? Plants don't grow without any of those. Obviously, the word of God had SOME of those, not none at all as you are insisting because it grew up. And Jesus said himself this person believed. Again, if it was a big nothing it would be soil #1. That is where there is nothing.

You're projecting your 'once saved always saved' bias on the passage by saying since there was not greater growth this person is not saved. The passage does not say that. You do.

It's interesting to see how people who are quick to say "faith without works is dead" in James chapter 2 suddenly disregard that in this parable.

The word of God is growing in soil #2 and produced the fruit of joy (Galatians 5:22). But you are sure there is nothing here, no root, no moisture, no fruit, no believing, nothing. That is soil #1. And that is the soil Jesus specifically said is unsaved.

Also the same Greek word for believe "pisteuo" is used in James 2:19, in which we read that the demons believe "pisteuo" mental assent that "there is one God," but they do not believe "pisteuo" on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31) and are not saved.

The exact same word is used to describe the believing of saved people.

Soil #2 received the word......with joy. Doesn't sound like the believing the demons are doing.

John has portrayed people who "believe" to some level but are clearly not saved. There is a stage in the progress of belief in Jesus that "falls short of genuine or consummated belief resulting in salvation." As we see in John 2:23-25, in which their "belief" was superficial in nature and Jesus would not entrust/commit Himself to them.

Also, in John 8:31-59, where the Jews who were said to have "believed in him" turn out to be slaves to sin, indifferent to the words of Jesus’, children of the devil, liars, accused Jesus of having a demon and were guilty of setting out to stone and kill the one they have professed to believe in. YOU CALL THAT SAVED?

You're doing it again. You're projecting your once saved always saved bias on the passage. Your bias is telling you they wouldn't and can't stop believing if they had truly believed, but there is no reason to think they didn't stop believing just as easily as they started. Especially during this time before the giving of the Spirit in salvation.

Justified by faith, but never produces any fruit is an oxymoron.

Soil #2 had the fruit of joy.
And I'm pretty sure demons don't have that fruit in their 'believing'.

Don't forget, "faith without works is dead." Of those who are justified, how many of them will be glorified? Romans 8:30 - Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. ALL of them. *Notice how Paul uses the past tense for a future event in order to stress it's certainty.

It is a certainty if you keep believing. The sure promises are for those who believe, not for those who stop believing.

The sureness of the promises is not that you'll always stay in them. The sureness of the promises is in God who won't fail to deliver on them.......to those who believe, not to those who stop believing.